A Millennial Speaks out

Moby

economic wrote: »

It is clear that Moby is far left.

How do you define fair? Fairness is highly subjective.

Is it fair for a person with a IQ of 80 on minimum wage to receive a % of wealth from a person with a 100 IQ who has worked hard and built up quite a bit of wealth so he can pass onto his children?

I'm only far left compared to someone who would distribute wealth by IQ levels. Would you use calipers to measure skull size as well?

People who stand to inherit large sums haven't done anything to earn that money. An accident of birth placed them in a comparatively wealthy family and they have benefited from that their whole life. Also in the UK, official statistics suggest around £77bn is passed on in inheritance each year (tax avoidance means the real amount could be even higher). That's money that no living being has a moral claim to, according to standard justifications of wealth inequality and private property. Were that money redistributed by the state, it would cover the cost of adult social care several times over. It could plug gaps in NHS, education and police funding. It could provide the kind of comprehensive welfare state that meant nobody had to worry about their family after they passed away because there would always be a safety net. Why do we automatically assume that the wishes of the dead to control that wealth should take priority?

Moby

GreatApe wrote: »

Nonsense

Technology and productivity gave us the ability to afford healthcare and welfare.

If it was just a matter of voting in a lefty it would have happened many decades sooner

Why isn't this obvious to everyone? Do you think you could go to Somalia set up a left wing government and just vote for better conditions and they would manically appear?

All governments do is put pen to paper. The act of drawing some swiggly lines on paper does not create any wealth in itself

We need freedom and free people and they create wonders of the world

Try and set up a communist system or an extremely socialist system and what you have to do is curtail peoples freedom. Command and control doesn't work. I wish it was as easy as that. But all of history shows command and control creates death and destruction.

The free markets give us the ability to be productive and have 'free' healthcare and welfare

I've explained all this to you before. Your understanding of society is very narrow. Without the political will to organise labour, technology has little impact. That is why you couldn't just transfer technology to Somalia and create a free market democracy.Actually Stalin did very well with command and control. He destroyed the nazis. He did cause death and destruction as well but that was because he was an evil dictator himself. Stalin wasn't a true socialist any more than Hitler was. Both of them twisted the good values of socialism to create their own power base and then became racist fuelled dictators. Democratic socialism is not like that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_democratic_socialist_parties_and_organizations

ukcarper

Moby wrote: »

I'm only far left compared to someone who would distribute wealth by IQ levels. Would you use calipers to measure skull size as well?

People who stand to inherit large sums haven't done anything to earn that money. An accident of birth placed them in a comparatively wealthy family and they have benefited from that their whole life. Also in the UK, official statistics suggest around £77bn is passed on in inheritance each year (tax avoidance means the real amount could be even higher). That's money that no living being has a moral claim to, according to standard justifications of wealth inequality and private property. Were that money redistributed by the state, it would cover the cost of adult social care several times over. It could plug gaps in NHS, education and police funding. It could provide the kind of comprehensive welfare state that meant nobody had to worry about their family after they passed away because there would always be a safety net. Why do we automatically assume that the wishes of the dead to control that wealth should take priority?

But the money people pass down is normally accrued out of tax income and many people like myself have not been left anything, I dont see why the capital I have accrued should be taxed. U.K. has one of the highest inheritance tax it the world and the much loved Sweden has none.

triathlon

GreatApe wrote: »

Nonsense

Technology and productivity gave us the ability to afford healthcare and welfare.

If it was just a matter of voting in a lefty it would have happened many decades sooner

Why isn't this obvious to everyone? Do you think you could go to Somalia set up a left wing government and just vote for better conditions and they would manically appear?

All governments do is put pen to paper. The act of drawing some swiggly lines on paper does not create any wealth in itself

We need freedom and free people and they create wonders of the world

Try and set up a communist system or an extremely socialist system and what you have to do is curtail peoples freedom. Command and control doesn't work. I wish it was as easy as that. But all of history shows command and control creates death and destruction.

The free markets give us the ability to be productive and have 'free' healthcare and welfare

Look, the last thing I come across is being left wing, I have so called right wing opinions that will make your toes curl, but the one thing I will concede is that the working man who is willing to work 50 hours per week and put into his or her family and society MUST be protected.
There people in this world which has been proved time and time again that will just feed off the masses like parasites given the chance. I have voted for a socialism government once and that has now put me off, but that has not stopped me from acknowledging there was a time when social justice in the UK was 2 out of 10 at best.

The problem with Labour now began with the Harold Wilson era which morphed into the Tony Blair debacle which in my opinion was the most corrupt and damaging government in the last century after David Cameron. There was once an old type of Labour spirit seen in many real working class areas that has now long gone sadly, now we are left with this Corbyn imposter who just encourages the lazy to be more lazy, that's not socialism.

I do get a feeling though that your life is basically all about looking after No1, which to be fair is about 25% of my DNA make up

You can go on ranting about the joys a right wing doctrine brings the UK, but that has never been the case with good people that bring new and good things into our lives. More often than not we are a liberal nation, and the was a time when right wing politics took the p*** the pendulum swung the other way to correct the damage with a left wing thinking and visa versa.

Trouble in modern politics is that we have had the same type of people with the same identical politics for the last 40 years coming from the two supposed main parties

economic

Moby wrote: »

I'm only far left compared to someone who would distribute wealth by IQ levels. Would you use calipers to measure skull size as well?

People who stand to inherit large sums haven't done anything to earn that money. An accident of birth placed them in a comparatively wealthy family and they have benefited from that their whole life. Also in the UK, official statistics suggest around £77bn is passed on in inheritance each year (tax avoidance means the real amount could be even higher). That's money that no living being has a moral claim to, according to standard justifications of wealth inequality and private property. Were that money redistributed by the state, it would cover the cost of adult social care several times over. It could plug gaps in NHS, education and police funding. It could provide the kind of comprehensive welfare state that meant nobody had to worry about their family after they passed away because there would always be a safety net. Why do we automatically assume that the wishes of the dead to control that wealth should take priority?

Fine let!!!8217;s impose a law to tax all wealth at 100% when someone dies. That someone who has died will have just spent the wealth or hidden the wealth or gifted the wealth or liquidated the business (resulting in job losses) or liquidated investment portfolio (resulting in market volatility). All of this resulting in exactly zero inheritance tax payable by the !!!8220;estate!!!8221;. I know that!!!8217;s what I would do if I know my wealth will all be taxed when I die.

Arklight

GreatApe wrote: »

Corbyn and McDonalds face are communist its not my guess they outright say they are

It leads to poverty and death
Anyone who says otherwise is stupid
It was tried in Russia of failed
It was tried in China of failed
It was tried in Cambodia it failed
It was tried in Congo it failed
It was tried in east Germany it failed

It doesn't work of leads to death and misery

The success of the west is based on individual rights and freedoms
The failure of the communists is that their ideology of group identity.


I am not against higher taxes in a free market.
Only if they actually produce a bet good and actually increase the tax take. If you double a tax and only get the same amount of revenue that is stupid but it is something the far left would do just to spite people

The success of the West is largely due to slavery and imperialism actually. I!!!8217;m not sure what you have against McDonalds now. Unaccountable corporations economically colonising the globe with one sided franchise agreements should be right up your street politically.

Maybe the Mao Nuggets campaign they ran put you off.

Arklight

GreatApe wrote: »

Nonsense

Technology and productivity gave us the ability to afford healthcare and welfare.

If it was just a matter of voting in a lefty it would have happened many decades sooner

Why isn't this obvious to everyone? Do you think you could go to Somalia set up a left wing government and just vote for better conditions and they would manically appear?

All governments do is put pen to paper. The act of drawing some swiggly lines on paper does not create any wealth in itself

We need freedom and free people and they create wonders of the world

Try and set up a communist system or an extremely socialist system and what you have to do is curtail peoples freedom. Command and control doesn't work. I wish it was as easy as that. But all of history shows command and control creates death and destruction.

The free markets give us the ability to be productive and have 'free' healthcare and welfare

For god's sake, no one is proposing communism or hardline socialism.

Why can you not understand this?

kabayiri

triathlon wrote: »

You do realise that a socialist government gave us the NHS and the welfare state, two of arguably the greatest UK reforms, you do also realise that most of the greatest social reforms in the UK came from socialist Labour.

Those two things were not as they are now.

If people today had the welfare state/NHS introduced post WW2, they would be shocked at the basic level of service provided. It makes comparison limited.

Maybe the issue is function creep. What would stop a health system from demanding more and more resources, until it just collapses?

maisie_cat

When I bought my first house in 1983 it was the best I could get on my salary and required a 2 hour each way commute to Central London.
Nothing has really changed, the only people who can afford to live in London are those in social housing, the rich and those whose parents give them £150k to help them. I have friends & relations in all 3 categories and even decades later I still cannot afford to live inside the M25.
Nothing to complain about, frankly I no longer want to live in such a loud mad stressful place.

Arklight

maisie_cat wrote: »

When I bought my first house in 1983 it was the best I could get on my salary and required a 2 hour each way commute to Central London.
Nothing has really changed, the only people who can afford to live in London are those in social housing, the rich and those whose parents give them £150k to help them. I have friends & relations in all 3 categories and even decades later I still cannot afford to live inside the M25.
Nothing to complain about, frankly I no longer want to live in such a loud mad stressful place.

Plenty of people bought in London in the late 90s and early 00s back when there were still cheap areas. If you were prepared to live in them. My cousin bought a flat in a terrifying ex council block in Brixton where one night a drug dealer mistook his door for a rival dealer and literally kicked it in looking for him while he and his wife were inside.

They sold, made a killing as Brixton was becoming trendy and bought a flat in Streatham. They split up, sold that and with his half he bought a house outright in his home town in the Midlands.

There are still very grotty parts of London, they just aren!!!8217;t cheap anymore.